Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:41:29 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-test10) |
| |
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 05:30:26PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: > > > > Also sprach kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: > > } > de4x5 is probably also buggy in regard to this. > > } > > } de4x5 is hopeless. I added nice comment in softnet to it. > > } Unfortunately it was lost. 8) > > } > > } Andi, neither you nor me nor Alan nor anyone are able to audit > > } all this unnevessarily overcomplicated code. It was buggy, is buggy > > } and will be buggy. It is inavoidable, as soon as you have hundreds > > } of drivers. > > } > > If they are buggy and unsupported, why aren't they being expunged from > > the main source tree and placed into a ``contrib'' directory or something > > for people who may want those drivers? > > de4x5 is stable. Its hopeless to add stuff to it, or try to any fix of > the (IMHO small) issues, but its fine as is. For maintenance issues, > its PCI support will be eliminated in 2.5.x because it is a duplicate of > support in the tulip driver.
de4x5 is stable, but tends to perform badly under load, mostly because it doesn't use rx_copybreak and overflows standard socket buffers with its always MTU sized skbuffs.
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |